Mathers v. Cinéparc St-Eustache Inc.

Mathers v. Cinéparc St-Eustache Inc.

The prothonotary applied the correct legal test for reasonable apprehension of bias, accepted the pleaded facts but correctly concluded that those facts (the prothonotary's spouse working in the same departmental sector as opposing counsel) do not, by themselves, establish a reasonable apprehension of bias; the prothonotary's discretionary order was not clearly wrong and the court will not substitute its discretion.

Citation
2001 FCT 241
Parties
Judgment Debtor: JEAN-GUY MATHERS; Objector: CINÉPARC ST-EUSTACHE INC.; Intervener: DEPUTY MINISTER OF REVENUE OF QUEBEC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Prothonotary Decision in Tax Assessment Proceedings Under the Income Tax Act / Appeal From Prothonotary's Refusal to Disqualify Himself
Outcome
Motion to disqualify prothonotary dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Disqualification, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Standard of Review, Prothonotary Discretion
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Tax Law Judicial Conduct and Bias Disqualification Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Standard of Review Prothonotary Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEAN-GUY MATHERS

Judgment Debtor

CINÉPARC ST-EUSTACHE INC.

Objector

DEPUTY MINISTER OF REVENUE OF QUEBEC

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Prothonotary Decision in Tax Assessment Proceedings Under the Income Tax Act / Appeal From Prothonotary's Refusal to Disqualify Himself

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prothonotary Morneau should be disqualified for a reasonable apprehension of bias based on his spouse's employment connections
  2. 2 What standard of review applies to an appeal from a prothonotary's discretionary order
  3. 3 Whether the alleged facts (counsel and prothonotary's spouse employed in same federal Department sector) constitute grounds for disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary applied the correct legal test for reasonable apprehension of bias, accepted the pleaded facts but correctly concluded that those facts (the prothonotary's spouse working in the same departmental sector as opposing counsel) do not, by themselves, establish a reasonable apprehension of bias; the prothonotary's discretionary order was not clearly wrong and the court will not substitute its discretion.

Court Disposition

Motion to disqualify prothonotary dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed with costs.